Posted on 04/27/2010 7:07:50 AM PDT by Menehune56
I cannot think of any other subject in recent American history that has been so mired in controversy, so factually misrepresented, mischaracterized and so misunderstood than the matter of the eligibility of Barack Hussein OBAMA II to hold the office of President of the United States. Despite its importance, the topic has been summarily dismissed as fodder for conspiracy theorists by many, while others insist that the question of OBAMA’s citizenship has been “asked and answered.” But has it really been answered, and if not, why not?
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
“If born abroad, both parents need to be citizens. If born in the USA, that isn’t true.”
True. Unless you’re talking Natural Born Citizenship, then both statements are FALSE.
1 - Birthers lack standing because they cannot convince anyone WITH standing to agree with them. Not a state official anywhere. Not a single member of Congress.
2 - Birthers have had cases heard in state courts, and they have been shot down. No federal court has then taken it up.
3 - Birther arguments were given the the US Supreme Court, and rejected without comment. That means either the Supreme Court found the issue trivial, or they considered it established law already.
Snicker. Your feeble attempt to bring up a case that is not relevant only amuses people who see through your idiotic toadying.
Wrong. But if you think otherwise, present your case. What rulings indicate that NBC requires both parents to be US citizens at the child’s birth? Where do the courts distinguish between native citizen and natural born citizen?
Wow! THAT is a convincing argument...
The likelihood that such a CLN would stand up if its recipient later chose to disavow it is about the same as the likelihood that Dean Acheson was SoS in the years mentioned. IOW, more typical birfer ravings.
1. Corrupt government does not justify, the courts not hearing the poeples arguments
2. Does not invalidate the arguments.
3. No it just means that the SC is gutless
Did you ever ask yourself or even wonder why are the school records sealed?
We'd like to see it because it'll shoot down 0b0z0's media-manufactured myth of his "brilliance!" It'll also confirm where he graduated from, his GPAs, and who paid for his "education." Never mind his Alinsky degree in Communism.
This ghost of a POTUS has to come clean, but my suspicion is that he'll be found quite dirty.
Note that I didn't question his eligibility and so, After-Birther propaganda doesn't apply here.
A Ghoster, NOT a Birther
Usually, but not always, the original article is formatted more legibly than the excerpt and has working links, images, and media.
“Where do the courts distinguish between native citizen and natural born citizen?”
Here is your major problem. Being a Natural Born Citizen was required by the CONSTITUTION, not the COURTS.
The courts are a political entity, and can declare the sky green. If they weren’t POLITICAL, there would be no 5 to 4 decisions.
“Here is your major problem. Being a Natural Born Citizen was required by the CONSTITUTION, not the COURTS.”
But the Constitution doesn’t supply a definition, which is what the Congress and Courts have done. The debate is over what NBC means...and either Congress or the Courts need to define that.
And both pretty well HAVE decided that a person born in the USA qualifies.
I agree. I think his school records would show both his lack of brilliance and his socialist leanings.
Snicker. All your feeble straw clutching “arguments” have been dismantled, vivisected and exploded to smithereens by the great brains on FR.
I’m just a member of the audience.
You are now providing comic relief.
“Petty well.”
Ooh, legalese to the max!
“And both pretty well HAVE decided that a person born in the USA qualifies.”
Absolutely FALSE. The CONSTITUTION says NBC required, and the founders knew what it meant. They used the definition of NBC at the time. I’m sure you’re not saying they used the definition concocted some decades later. Are you? LOL
Great article.
See if you can understand this.....
In 1953 someone says, “I keep my family photos in my notebook”
OR
“I have my thesis right here on my laptop”
Please define NOTEBOOK and LAPTOP.
Would you use the definition at the time, or some 50 years later?????????????????
You see how your arguments make NO SENSE!
It’s like every friggin’ post is an excerpt.
FREEPERs are friggin’ lazy.
Lighten up Francis!!!
Perhaps you should take a perusal of the numerous sources that have 'required' their articles be excerpted. You may then discern the what/when/who is required.
As you have inferred you are not lazy...I shall decline to provide the listed excerpted sources. I'll leave the 'hunt' for you!
Then again, you may have indicated the lack of comprehending the point and click.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.